ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Four Tops founder: Congress, fix pre-1972 music's royalties

| Saturday, Jan. 13, 2018, 6:36 p.m.
youtube.com

I'm a lucky man. I've been a performer and recording artist for most of my life. As a founding member of the Four Tops, I've been blessed to travel the world, making music with my dearest friends, and we've seen our records hit the top of the charts. It's a privilege I've never taken for granted.

I'm also an activist who has spent years fighting to change laws that exploit artists. Our copyright system does not always provide fair compensation for performers and musicians, and I know that not everyone has been as fortunate as I have.

My fellow artists and I have argued for economic justice and fairness for so long, it can feel like the same empty answers keep coming around. And “the same old song” just isn't good enough anymore.

That makes this moment critical. After years of “hurry up and wait” in Washington, powerful forces in Congress are attempting to fix one of the worst abuses faced by older artists: the “digital rip-off” of all recordings made before 1972.

Right now, digital radio stations such as SiriusXM and iHeartRadio pay royalties to artists for most of the music they play. It's real money: Digital streams make up half of all music business revenue, pushing $4 billion a year. A lot of that money goes to independent artists, backup singers, session players and sidemen — including a generation of lost greats who may have played a lot but didn't get paid a lot. It's money these folks count on to pay rent, buy groceries, cover medical bills and support their families.

But there's a catch: Those stations don't pay royalties on music recorded before 1972. Because federal copyright law doesn't cover recorded music before 1972, some of the huge services that play music from the '40s, '50s, '60s and early '70s have managed to get away with this inequity. Songwriters and music publishers may be getting paid, but the artists and the owners of the sound recordings are not.

This digital rip-off has been a disaster for many older artists, diverting the fruits of their labors to the balance sheets of some of the wealthiest companies in the world. Digital radio earns millions every year from the exploitation of pre-'72 music, from big band to Motown to the British Invasion. Yet artists who recorded those classics — many of whom are no longer able to tour — struggle for basic food, shelter and medical care. It's ridiculous, it's unfair and it's about time we make it illegal.

Change is long overdue, but a chance to right this wrong is at hand. A bipartisan bill called the Classics Act is moving quickly through Congress. The bill would require digital radio to treat all music the same, regardless of when it was recorded. It would open a world-changing lifeline for musicians from back in the day, bringing basic economic fairness to this key corner of the music world.

We've been stuck for a long time in the fight for fairness for music creators. And the Classics Act isn't the end of the road. We need to finally ensure the payment of a fair performance royalty for terrestrial radio and close the loopholes that allow big tech companies to collect huge profits while paying next to nothing for music.

A great piece of music should earn its fair share, whether it was recorded in 2002 or 1962. This is a problem Congress has a chance to fix. In the meantime, I'll keep singing. And I'll keep fighting for what's right. “I can't help myself!”

Duke Fakir is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me